"A company in decline cannot turn itself around by buying a company on the rise."
you're right, but a company in decline stuck in an old paradigm and living off of past successes can (and should) try to learn from currently successful companies (like SuSe) whether they buy them or not.
Outside of Microsoft, they are one of the most successful companies involved with network operating systems. They lead the pack in networked file and print servers, in a time when there was no internet.
I think that Novell will sink unless they start to get the right idea, and that a SuSe buyout might be a good thing for them, if it could happen, and it could be a good thing for us, too.
Why do people find it necessary to making linux/windows comparisons everytime there is a security issue out, instead of a more productive discussion about the vulnerability itself ?
Do we remember or care about those incidents and vulnerabilities ? Of course. Does any serious admin recognize the security history of any OS that he runs ? Of course. I'm well aware of the amount of patches there are for the many OSs I run.
Will there always be people on slashdot such as yourself posting irrelevant sidenotes designed to start an argument with an obviously biased audience ? Apparently, *you* are proof of that.
Getting the slashdot crowd to argue with you about the security of Linux and Windows is about as challenging as guessing the color of the sky.
You must feel so proud of yourself. Next time, try posting a comment that is productive.
p.s. the number of posted patches for OSs mean nothing when used in any arguing the security of an OS, because the severity of each has implications depending on too many variables. (application, use, adoption, vendor, etc.)
no, you don't have to pay for certain types of content on your connection right now...but there is much evidence that points towards it happening in the future, if the cable broadband companies get their way.
I totally agree, and am happy to see someone working in that space make comments like that.
"the transport company shouldn't care what data I send over the pipe" -- this indeed should be the case, but it's increasingly not. I don't want to digress, but priority is being given not to the type of content (video, audio, web, etc.) like it should, but to the actual content itself, these days.
For the same reason that highways are (for the most part) free, that's why. When communications are viewed as a way to improve commerce, it will be free. (just like highways)
I'm coming into this thread late, and haven't read all the way up...but I can tell you that even with "raw" file transactions, Oracle doesn't handle it's own file i/o outside of the OS. what I mean by that is that Oracle (and pretty much every other database out there) is still subject to the device control and i/o of the OS. if the OS sucks, the database is going to suck.
also...make sure not to confuse database "paging" with the virtual memory-management "paging"...they are different.
(all of that said, I have no business claiming any database being better than another)
in addition, in those rare cases where states or departments do not need to make publicly available it's purchasing/implementation justifications, any extra effort made to provide this justification is not the fault of this bill, it's the fault of the operating department or state agency.
no, you're not understanding me...with or without this bill, currently, state governements, at all levels of purchasing, have to give justification as to why they buy things, be it services or goods.
this is happening right now.
one glaring example is how equipment is bought for state-run buildings. you have air conditioner vendors 1, 2, and 3. each of them have their pros and cons, and not always the cheapest ones win. the future costs of maintaining them, the initial costs of purchase, the vendor companies future viability... these are all things that are considered, and the winning choice has to be justified. so basically the complaint that closed source has to be justified but opensource does not....it's a moot point. ANY product has to be justified in many (including Texas) states before purchased or implemented.
the point of this bill and others like it is that OpenSource software is NOT given the consideration it should, for various reasons. one can imagine MANY reasons why apache or sendmail might not be suitable for a state-run office, and or why Exchange is unsuitable as well. the reasoning for choosing one over the other has to be justified already, whether this bill passes or not.
this is NOT a "sneaky" way of requiring opensource, no matter how opponents of this bill want to try to spin it.
how is it mandating ? because the cost of the paperwork to justify buying proprietary is too high ? is that what your point is ?
the truth is is that most (if not all) of the decisions involving software purchases at the state government level have to be justified as part of the evaluation process, opensource or NOT. there is no extra added overhead of paperwork. the provision in this bill is already satisfied by the purchasing requirements of the evaluating department.
i think this is somewhat false. people who purchase software are in a lot of cases aware of OpenSource products, especially in a state that has a large budget to employ people to do in-depth evaluations of software.
i think you'd be surprised how many states do use OSS and know why they chose it.
while I'm sure that this IS a troll, i'll bite because I'm waiting on a Solaris upgrade that'll take a while...
if OSS will completely stall the world economy, then why hasn't it already ? Sendmail ? Apache ? BIND ? these things essentially run the internet, having more use than any other of its closed source counterparts, by an astronomically high rate.
please explain how OSS will stall the economy. if you have no response, then my idea of it being a troll may have been true.
so you would rather "use the OSS tool for the job even tho it doesn't work" ? come on.
if people prefer OSS, then they WILL make it better. but in the meantime, they'll use what works. or, at least they should. you can use OSS when it works better, which doesn't take that long to be the case.
yes, I am aware of this history. But the government allowing a company to operate a monopoly for such a long time is *not* the same as a government funding and operating a network infrastructure.
I would even go far enough to disagree with the word "sponsored".
Your original post implied that the telco monopoly was created/run by the govt, but I guess I read it incorrectly. I believe that just because a government supports/funds a network infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean it's a Bad Thing. There are many examples of this, including (as original posters pointed out) the federal highway and railroad systems.
Note I'm not saying that everything that is government funded/supported is good, as in an extreme example, communism. What I'm saying is that we don't have an example of how a government-sponsored network would be bad, in reality, and that the telco-monopoly, while an excellent history of how govt _intervention_ was a good thing, isn't 100% applicable.
Countries that have govt funded/supported network infrastructure have stability and speeds to regular home users that surpass the US's users many many times over. Of course, they have less population, but the speeds of connected households (like in Asia) can get up to 12mb.
Until something is done with the market-run dsl/cable networks, I don't see US broadband speeds increasing anytime soon. I'm saying that govt funding/support (if possible) could potentially be a Good Thing.
you suggest that it was owned/operated by the government. what are you talking about ? it was a private company, who, thru government regulation, forced them to allow non-Bell commuications over their wires.
ATT/Bells was not owned or run by the US govt. Re-read your history.
not that i'm arguing, but comparing DSL support to the International Crime Court is a bit like comparing what kind of coffee the IRS drinks to GE employees. you just can't make the two connect.
when was there a state-monopoly telco in the US ? as far as I know, it was govt intervention (the breakup of att and the regulations imposed on the bells) that basically ALLOWED the internet to work.
no, it doesn't. just like handing out a DHCP address on a corporate LAN doesn't mean that you're allowed to download porn, handing out an address is not explicit permission to do anything except have that address.
my interpretation here is legal, not practical. again, most analogies don't work in this situation, because most people who have their wireless routers serving DHCP insecurely are most likely not aware of the "danger" of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
"A company in decline cannot turn itself around by buying a company on the rise."
you're right, but a company in decline stuck in an old paradigm and living off of past successes can (and should) try to learn from currently successful companies (like SuSe) whether they buy them or not.
Outside of Microsoft, they are one of the most successful companies involved with network operating systems. They lead the pack in networked file and print servers, in a time when there was no internet.
I think that Novell will sink unless they start to get the right idea, and that a SuSe buyout might be a good thing for them, if it could happen, and it could be a good thing for us, too.
Hello.
Why do people find it necessary to making linux/windows comparisons everytime there is a security issue out, instead of a more productive discussion about the vulnerability itself ?
Do we remember or care about those incidents and vulnerabilities ? Of course. Does any serious admin recognize the security history of any OS that he runs ? Of course. I'm well aware of the amount of patches there are for the many OSs I run.
Will there always be people on slashdot such as yourself posting irrelevant sidenotes designed to start an argument with an obviously biased audience ? Apparently, *you* are proof of that.
Getting the slashdot crowd to argue with you about the security of Linux and Windows is about as challenging as guessing the color of the sky.
You must feel so proud of yourself.
Next time, try posting a comment that is productive.
p.s. the number of posted patches for OSs mean nothing when used in any arguing the security of an OS, because the severity of each has implications depending on too many variables. (application, use, adoption, vendor, etc.)
no, you don't have to pay for certain types of content on your connection right now...but there is much evidence that points towards it happening in the future, if the cable broadband companies get their way.
I totally agree, and am happy to see someone working in that space make comments like that.
"the transport company shouldn't care what data I send over the pipe" -- this indeed should be the case, but it's increasingly not. I don't want to digress, but priority is being given not to the type of content (video, audio, web, etc.) like it should, but to the actual content itself, these days.
For the same reason that highways are (for the most part) free, that's why. When communications are viewed as a way to improve commerce, it will be free. (just like highways)
how is that any different from what has happened before ? once any "flaws" are pointed out by each group, any benchmark results are moot.
Ranting about laws that won't work is what makes good laws good, genius. Lose your condescending tone, you'll appear like a smart person if you do.
You call 5dwm *BETTER* than gnome or kde ?
you have serious problems.
I'm coming into this thread late, and haven't read all the way up...but I can tell you that even with "raw" file transactions, Oracle doesn't handle it's own file i/o outside of the OS. what I mean by that is that Oracle (and pretty much every other database out there) is still subject to the device control and i/o of the OS. if the OS sucks, the database is going to suck.
also...make sure not to confuse database "paging" with the virtual memory-management "paging"...they are different.
(all of that said, I have no business claiming any database being better than another)
nope...it's there:
/ SB 01579I.HTM
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext
in addition, in those rare cases where states or departments do not need to make publicly available it's purchasing/implementation justifications, any extra effort made to provide this justification is not the fault of this bill, it's the fault of the operating department or state agency.
no, you're not understanding me...with or without this bill, currently, state governements, at all levels of purchasing, have to give justification as to why they buy things, be it services or goods.
this is happening right now.
one glaring example is how equipment is bought for state-run buildings. you have air conditioner vendors 1, 2, and 3. each of them have their pros and cons, and not always the cheapest ones win. the future costs of maintaining them, the initial costs of purchase, the vendor companies future viability... these are all things that are considered, and the winning choice has to be justified. so basically the complaint that closed source has to be justified but opensource does not....it's a moot point. ANY product has to be justified in many (including Texas) states before purchased or implemented.
the point of this bill and others like it is that OpenSource software is NOT given the consideration it should, for various reasons. one can imagine MANY reasons why apache or sendmail might not be suitable for a state-run office, and or why Exchange is unsuitable as well. the reasoning for choosing one over the other has to be justified already, whether this bill passes or not.
this is NOT a "sneaky" way of requiring opensource, no matter how opponents of this bill want to try to spin it.
how is it mandating ? because the cost of the paperwork to justify buying proprietary is too high ? is that what your point is ?
the truth is is that most (if not all) of the decisions involving software purchases at the state government level have to be justified as part of the evaluation process, opensource or NOT. there is no extra added overhead of paperwork. the provision in this bill is already satisfied by the purchasing requirements of the evaluating department.
I agree with you..also another point is that OpenSource software isn't always free (as in beer)..sometimes, OSS costs money to buy.
i think this is somewhat false. people who purchase software are in a lot of cases aware of OpenSource products, especially in a state that has a large budget to employ people to do in-depth evaluations of software.
i think you'd be surprised how many states do use OSS and know why they chose it.
while I'm sure that this IS a troll, i'll bite because I'm waiting on a Solaris upgrade that'll take a while...
if OSS will completely stall the world economy, then why hasn't it already ? Sendmail ? Apache ? BIND ? these things essentially run the internet, having more use than any other of its closed source counterparts, by an astronomically high rate.
please explain how OSS will stall the economy. if you have no response, then my idea of it being a troll may have been true.
so you would rather "use the OSS tool for the job even tho it doesn't work" ? come on.
if people prefer OSS, then they WILL make it better. but in the meantime, they'll use what works. or, at least they should. you can use OSS when it works better, which doesn't take that long to be the case.
it's not REQUIRING anything, except that OpenSource software be *considered*.
yes, I am aware of this history. But the government allowing a company to operate a monopoly for such a long time is *not* the same as a government funding and operating a network infrastructure.
I would even go far enough to disagree with the word "sponsored".
Your original post implied that the telco monopoly was created/run by the govt, but I guess I read it incorrectly. I believe that just because a government supports/funds a network infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean it's a Bad Thing. There are many examples of this, including (as original posters pointed out) the federal highway and railroad systems.
Note I'm not saying that everything that is government funded/supported is good, as in an extreme example, communism. What I'm saying is that we don't have an example of how a government-sponsored network would be bad, in reality, and that the telco-monopoly, while an excellent history of how govt _intervention_ was a good thing, isn't 100% applicable.
Countries that have govt funded/supported network infrastructure have stability and speeds to regular home users that surpass the US's users many many times over. Of course, they have less population, but the speeds of connected households (like in Asia) can get up to 12mb.
Until something is done with the market-run dsl/cable networks, I don't see US broadband speeds increasing anytime soon. I'm saying that govt funding/support (if possible) could potentially be a Good Thing.
you suggest that it was owned/operated by the government. what are you talking about ? it was a private company, who, thru government regulation, forced them to allow non-Bell commuications over their wires.
ATT/Bells was not owned or run by the US govt. Re-read your history.
not that i'm arguing, but comparing DSL support to the International Crime Court is a bit like comparing what kind of coffee the IRS drinks to GE employees. you just can't make the two connect.
uh...either that, or they don't have their lights on, right ?
when was there a state-monopoly telco in the US ?
as far as I know, it was govt intervention (the breakup of att and the regulations imposed on the bells) that basically ALLOWED the internet to work.
totally off-topic, and has nothing to do with the fact that most of Asia is more connected and higher speed than the US.
when I can get 12mb to my house like in Tokyo, THEN i'll say the US is connected.
no, it doesn't. just like handing out a DHCP address on a corporate LAN doesn't mean that you're allowed to download porn, handing out an address is not explicit permission to do anything except have that address.
my interpretation here is legal, not practical. again, most analogies don't work in this situation, because most people who have their wireless routers serving DHCP insecurely are most likely not aware of the "danger" of doing so.